Wheelchair skills training for caregivers of manual wheelchair users: a randomized controlled trial comparing self-study and remote training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypotheses that, in comparison with control participants receiving only self-study materials (SS group), caregivers of manual wheelchair users who additionally receive remote training (RT group) have greater total Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q) performance and confidence scores post-training and at follow-up; and that self-study and remote training each individually lead to such gains. We studied 23 dyads of wheelchair users and their caregivers. Caregivers in the SS group received a handbook and videorecording. Those in the RT group also received up to four real-time ("synchronous") sessions remotely. The WST-Q 5.1 was administered pre-training (T1), post-training (T2), and after a 3-month follow-up (T3). The mean total WST-Q scores of both groups rose slightly at each new assessment. For the T2-T1 and T3-T1 gains, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for either WST-Q performance or WST-Q confidence. For performance, the T2-T1 gain was statistically significant for the RT group and the T3-T2 gain was statistically significant for the SS group. For both groups, the T3-T1 gains in performance were statistically significant with gains of 12.9% and 18.5% relative to baseline for the SS and RT groups. For confidence, only the T3-T1 gain for the SS group was statistically significant with a gain of 4.5% relative to baseline. Although less than the gains previously reported for in-person training, modest but important gains in total WST-Q performance scores can be achieved by self-study, with or without remote training. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03856749.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".